It's a Texas Christian Miracle! Only 5 Players tested positive and 4 are in jail!
It's absolutely amazing! I can't believe that anyone would have ever believed those drug dealers on the team that were arrested... saying things like "82 people failed that test" and "It's not a big deal. 60 people failed, what can they do?"... OBVIOUSLY they were high when they were just randomly speculating on the amount of their social circle who participates in drug use.
According to the Fort Worth Star Telegram, only 5 players tested positive. Also, 11 had trace amounts... meaning? What? They were NEAR drugs for a minute?
So, let me get this straight...
4% of your football team was just arrested for felony DISTRIBUTION of narcotics
Those players (you know, the ones who SOLD DOPE) said they could only think of 20 or so players that would pee clean.
They made these statements in the midst of causal conversation, not a plea bargain or anything
2 of them made separate remarks to 2 different people stating basically the same thing
The problem is so bad that TCU has RECRUITS telling the coaches they won't be going because of it
And on this random drug test that happens on the 16 days ago... 5 players test positive, 4 of which have already been arrested for felony DISTRIBUTION of narcotics, 11 players have trace amounts, and TCU has decided not to release the test results.
Wow.
It's a miracle. Thank god Patterson runs such a tight ship.
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yeah, 'cuz a drug dealer would never throw out wildly exaggerated statistics about the number of clients who buy his products...
… and it couldn’t possibly be a case in which a guy who knows he’s going down will throw out complete bullshit about the guilt of others.
Really?
Neither of the comments you just made have anything to with this story. They weren’t talking about their clients and when they made the statements they weren’t “going down.”
These were from affidavits during an investigation, not cutting a deal. Here you go.
TCU's about to learn what strength of schedule actually means.
by Nico Martini on Feb 17, 2012 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
You apparently have little understanding of human psychology.
I’ll address each comment in a way which might help you being to understand and reach more logical conclusions. But before I get to that, I will address a factual error in your comment above. You say that at the time of their comments, the drug dealers were not “going down”. This is incorrect, at least from their perspective. The guy who made the statement knew he had taken a drug test which, in all likelihood, he failed by a long shot. He “knew”, whether he was correct or incorrect in his “knowledge”, that he was going to come up positive for at least one banned substance. In other words, he “knew” he was going down.
But back to the lesson in psychology -
- 1 – Most salesmen, especially those trying to sell a product which requires them to overcome an obstacle to sales (like, say, federal/state/local laws), will use an device wherein they throw out statements of “facts” designed to cause the client in their presence to “know” that their product has a lot of demand. Most humans do this without any type of sales training. It is in our nature. And those that actually have sales training do it in a generally more polished way.
“Never miss an opportunity to reinforce the perceived demand for your product.”
Now apply that to the young pot salesmen from TCU. They are with a client. They know that he is making a buy, but so far he hasn’t brought them any of his friends. They want to influence him to tell his friends – “Hey, if you want the good stuff you should go see this guy I know.” So they tell him something designed to cause him to reach the desired conclusion. And what better to tell him than something which his questions led to? He asked about the drug test, so the salesman turns it into an opportunity to reinforce the perceived demand for his product.
Now it is time for a judgment call on your part. WHich is more likely:
a – The salesman was trying to entice his client to bring friends to increase his business… especially in light of his clear perception that he wouldn’t have an NFL career to carry him in the future?? Or…
b – The drug dealer was fully aware of… and fully capable of describing with unerring accuracy on… exactly how much THC was present in the urine of 82 people of his acquaintance on 1 FEB 2012??
- 2 – Another interesting aspect of human psychology occurs when a person is certain that he has done something wrong. Usually, a person goes through the stages of reacting to a stressful event. The first stage is “Shock and Denial”. During this stage, it is common for the denial to manifest through wildly exaggerated claims of others’ equal culpability. It is a sort of “my wrong-doing isn’t so bad because lots of others are doing things equally wrong” statement. In most cases, it has little… if any… resemblance to the truth. Usually, the people on the receiving end of these sorts of comments can tell that the guy is desperately seeking some sort of acceptance from the audience for his nonsense. The phrase “grasping at straws” comes to mind… if you’re even familiar with that phrase.
But let’s explore the possibility that this drug dealer’s “Shock and Denial” stage resulted in his calm statement of absolute fact. It becomes, once again, a question of which is more likely:
a – The comments about others’ guilt were a desperate attempt on the part of a person going through the “Shock and Denial” stage of stress to convince somebody… anybody… that he was going to be ok?? Or…
b – The guy was raving and talking out of his ass because he was, in fact, in the “Shock and Denial” stage of stress??
Odd formatting up there.
Not sure why my comments were formatted the way they were, but I don’t think the formatting will prevent young Nico Martini from understanding what I’m talking about.
I should have included an "option c" in the post above.
c – The guy’s comments were completely absent of any influence from the stress associated with “pissing hot”, losing his scholarship, and kissing his NFL dreams good-bye forever.
You'll love this...
Instead of systematically ripping your longwinded response, I’ll drop this. You have no idea who I am or where my level of education stands. But I do know that you spent a lot of time crafting that response, and I’m very aware of how human psychology works regarding online interaction… So, you’ll love this:
First, if you’re going to pop off a comment and you’d like to be taken seriously, you may want to avoid things like “Yeah, cuz…”
Second, you sure have a lot of time on your hands! I bet you had to visit wikipedia 5 or 6 times for that one!
And lastly, and this is my favorite part of responding to trolls… Respond away. Break this down too. PLEASE come back with an even longer diatribe on the idiocy of this response… Because I’m not going read it. I didnt really even read the first one… That was just way to long and the continued use of the Internet has reduced my attention spaarrowy to only the things I’m interested in. We’re done here.
Good day sir! I hope you’ve had a blessed weekend!
TCU's about to learn what strength of schedule actually means.
by Nico Martini on Feb 19, 2012 5:17 PM CST up reply actions
Please excuse the typos.
This iPad is wonky.
“That was just way too long… And the continued use of the Internet has reduced my attention span down to only the things I’m interested in. We’re done here.”
Godspeed.
TCU's about to learn what strength of schedule actually means.
by Nico Martini on Feb 19, 2012 5:25 PM CST up reply actions
You're right. I did love your response.
The things I loved most about it:
- the fact that you reinforced the impression of intellectual laziness with which you started the discussion.
- your choice to hurl insults rather than address anything resembling a point. FYI, I didn’t visit wikipedia at all in writing my comments. There is no need to look for references when the cited information is common sense.
- the fact that the closest you came to making a point was when you harped on my use of “cuz”… an obviously intentional misspelling of “because” used purposely in response to your intellectually lazy approach to analyzing the TCU situation.
As for your level of education, you’re correct; I am not aware of how many degrees you have earned or from which institutions you have earned them. I am, however, keenly aware that you didn’t retain all of the information from the classes you took in psychology… or debate, for that matter. On the positive side, though, you did seem to retain a lot from your “Conspiracy Theories 101” class.
by USMA on Feb 19, 2012 11:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Athletes who don't smoke daily can often pass these tests just a few days after smoking
Because of lower body fat and higher fluid intake, which are functions of being an athlete. I knew a cross country guy who pissed clean just two days after smoking a big joint solo. When I was applying for a job at a grocery store when I was 16, a sophomore linebacker who was hired at the same time had smoked from a bong before my very eyes less than a week earlier, and he passed. Guys like that have so little body fat to retain the tell-tale elements, and they flush things through their system because they drink a ton of electrolytes to stay hydrated.
There are guys who smoke a little weed on weekends, and then those who do it all the time. There are others types, sure, but my guess is the guys who tested positive were chronic smokers, while the others were weekend guys at most. If you look at the date of the test (Feb. 1st), it was a Wednesday. That can certainly be enough time to get it out of the system with plenty of fluids.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Feb 17, 2012 12:46 PM CST reply actions
Good point
I hadn’t thought of it that way, but very well stated. I’m not convinced, but very well stated.
TCU's about to learn what strength of schedule actually means.
by Nico Martini on Feb 17, 2012 1:05 PM CST up reply actions
Ehh...
First, I don’t care about college kids smoking weed. It’s a felony because it’s a bad law born of a system with no philosophical consistency or logic.
Second, I think assuming 1) a college kid with questionable judgement to begin with is immune to hyperbole, and 2) said college kid would be in a position to know definitive test results from a sensitive and likely confidential drug screening are both mistakes.
What’s more likely, that these kids spoke haphazardly and out of turn, or that TCU has one of the most severe and rampant drug problems in the country, which absolutely no one knew about until a few weeks ago?
you ain't a beauty but hey you're all right.
Ehh... back atcha
First, I don’t care about college kids smoking weed. It’s a felony because it’s a bad law born of a system with no philosophical consistency or logic.
So, because its mislabeled as a felony, you don’t care if kids do it? And what system are you referring to? The legal system has no philosophical consistency or logic?
Second, I think assuming 1) a college kid with questionable judgement to begin with is immune to hyperbole, and 2) said college kid would be in a position to know definitive test results from a sensitive and likely confidential drug screening are both mistakes.
Immune? No one said the kid was George Washington. Just that at the time the statements were made, he had no legal motivation to lie. Could he still have been exagerating to look cool? Sure. But he wasn’t pleadealing, and he wasn’t going down in a blaze of snitchery either.
What’s more likely, that these kids spoke haphazardly and out of turn, or that TCU has one of the most severe and rampant drug problems in the country, which absolutely no one knew about until a few weeks ago?Like most things in life, the answer is probably right in the middle. Were these kids speaking haphazardly? Likely. Is the drug problem bigger than anyone knew about 2 seeks ago. Likely. The two are neither as extreme as you phrased them, nor are they mutually exclusive.
"A lot of people look for the easy way to do anything, in swimming there is no easy way." - Eddie Reese
Uhh...
I don’t care about kids smoking, growing or selling marijuana because I just don’t care about it. It’s not a moral issue for me, and I’m surprised it still elicits much teeth-knashing from people. You were very astute to point out that I was entirely specific about which system has incongruous mission statements, lack of focus, a dearth of leadership and seemingly little to no interest in honest reasoning, but I thought it was clear I meant the national drug policy and its relationships with the legal drug industries and law enforcement. I was not, as could have been misconstrued, referring to the entire legal and judicial system.
Debating whether the kid was lying to cover his ass really has nothing to do with anything. Even if he thought in his heart of hearts he was giving the truth, he had no authority to know how many kids on the football team might have failed the test. You have to take it with a grain of salt big enough to render the given figure meaningless. You might say, maybe he was selling to all of them. To that I say, what’s most likely? These are two junior Scarfaces, or just a couple dumb kids?
To your third point, the comparison was between two kids spouting off or TCU having one of the largest college drug markets in the country. Those two sides are very different. One failed drug test would be more than anyone knew two weeks ago.
Taking the information we have now, let’s say the football team represents a close approximation of the camps, and everyone with traces of marijuana is guilty. Not true, of course, but let’s say it’s as bad as that. We’re looking at 4 percent of students being active smokers and about another 9 percent of students being occasional, recreational smokers. Is this news?
The point I was trying to make is taking a loose statement included in an arrest warrant affidavit and surmising there is a huge problem at TCU is reckless. The truth is most likely much more mundane, which appears to be the case.
you ain't a beauty but hey you're all right.
by kalone on Feb 18, 2012 1:31 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Your opinion of pot isn't the point
These kids signed a contract. They agreed to stay clean while on the football team. Period. Violating that contract is a violation of NCAA rules.
Football players using drugs is against the law. But it also violates a private contract and affects their eligibility. That’s the more salient point in this particular discussion.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Feb 18, 2012 9:22 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Actually I'm not so sure of this
I was listening to talk show radio and they said that the NCAA does not have a rule on recreational drug use and I assume they meant that there are rules as to perfromance enhancing drugs.
They said that drugs like marijuana are left to each school to enforce, which is part of the reason you see such varying degrees of punishment, usually dependent on a players importance instead of a consistent punishment.
I was surprised to hear that and if it is true the NCAA once again shows its ineptitude.
As for TCU, I wonder what they tested for and I assume it was just marijuana. They probably didn’t want to know the answer to the other stuff.
We're Texas, We're not OK.
Nope. Look it up.
It’s easy to find online. Search “NCAA drug testing.” The policy clearly states that all “street drugs” are a violation of the rules.
Watch out, I bite.
by EddieTheAlbinoSquirrel on Feb 19, 2012 10:20 AM CST up reply actions
That's a pretty bureaucratic approach.
And a little sever and fatalistic when talking about teenagers, isn’t it? I get your point, though, that subjective feelings about the infraction’s morality aren’t really material to the TCU football program. However, you can’t separate judgement from the story, particularly as it’s being framed as a “shock” and a “serious student body issue” in news reports. Nor can you separate the idea that TCU is sort of this out of control campus from the original post above. Those attitudes are what I was addressing.
Your point is absolutely correct, though, and it would be nice to get some fresh news about possible NCAA sanctions — though I think Patterson nipped that in the bud — and the outlook for the 2012 football team and beyond.
you ain't a beauty but hey you're all right.
School policy as well...
A contract that is valid and binding when an offer is given and the scholarship accepted by signing the LOI.
I get tired of the supposed 'religion' of the school
being linked to kids doing dumb things. Leave the religion out of it for pete’s sake.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Feb 17, 2012 8:50 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
There's obviously hypocrisy to be found in just about any human being
But I strongly doubt that many of these football players chose TCU for its religious affiliation. If there’s a guy vocally espousing certain values, and then blatantly acting in a contradictory manner, that’s one thing. But that’s not what’s happening in this case. There are plenty of other schools with religious affiliations whose athletes do not necessarily subscribe to the values of the founders or affiliated religions of their schools, including methodists (Duke, SMU, Syracuse, Northwestern, etc.), catholics (Notre Dame, Georgetown, etc.), baptists (Baylor, Wake Forest, etc.), and quite a few more. I’ve known a number of kids who’ve gone to BYU despite not being mormon, and give its strong academics and athletics and low cost, I would have considered that as well.
Anyway, I agree. It’s a non-issue that this happened at TCU instead of, say, Tech or OSU.
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
― Isaac Asimov
by burntorangehorn on Feb 19, 2012 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with your agreement
I think regardless of beliefs there is a certain population of people who are all too happy to pounce on a kid/person doing dumb things that ALL humans do because there is a religious label attached somewhere (whether to the kid/person or school/business). In the end I just wish people would stop trying so hard to catch people in “gotcha” moments. These kids screwed up royally and it has ZERO to do with what school they attend, as you mentioned quite succinctly.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Feb 20, 2012 10:10 AM CST up reply actions
Intentional?
Leave the religion out of it for pete’s sake.
WVU slept dey couch.
by pleaseplaykindle on Feb 20, 2012 2:22 AM CST up reply actions
why yes, yes it was
That, and as a Christian I try very hard not to use certains words in certain ways, if you cant my meaning. There are enough curse words available that I dont have sully my personal beliefs in the frantic search for an adjective that will properly describe my road rage or whatever circumstance I find myself in at the moment of outburst, hah.
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Feb 20, 2012 10:07 AM CST up reply actions
*if you CATCH my meaning*
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Feb 20, 2012 10:11 AM CST up reply actions
With you there.
I just meant, doesn’t the “Pete” of “Pete’s sake” refer to St. Peter?
WVU slept dey couch.
by pleaseplaykindle on Feb 20, 2012 2:00 PM CST up reply actions
does it LOL?
I always thought that was the non-“take my Lord’s name in vain” way of saying for Christ’s sake. Perhaps I am not as witty as I thought I was, OR, I am so witty I outwitted myself (like Greg Davis, remember that guy?).
Because being a Texas fan means never having to say you're sorry.
by dukeoforange on Feb 20, 2012 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
I think Patterson has handled it well
He came out and said he was upset and now he is flat out mad. He tested the kids and he will enforce the punishment he feels will clean up his program. I don’t see anything wrong with how he has handled it step by step so far.
We're Texas, We're not OK.
You are disgusting
Patterson does run a tight ship. So does Mack Brown. That doesn’t mean college guys won’t do illegal things. Sometimes it spreads through a program and sometimes it doesn’t. Why don’t you lay off the TCU hate? I’m glad they only got five guys. In case you’ve forgotten, we need strong teams in our conference. Eat some horse dovers you disgrace for a Texas fan.
Careful Wheemers.
That guy’s feelings are easily hurt. On the other hand, you’re probably enough like me to not give a damn.
They are college kids. They’re gonna smoke weed at every college ut is in Austin. They see it all the time up there so don’t be hypocritical
by gigem12 on Feb 21, 2012 9:30 AM CST via iPhone app reply actions
college kids smoking weed isn't the issue.
having multiple players slangin’ a plethora of different drugs is the issue. I think any reasonable person would see that, but then again you have gigem in your name.
"Life is tough; it's tougher when you're stupid."
by TexasGangorDie on Feb 21, 2012 10:54 AM CST up reply actions

by 





























